On Tue, 30 May 2017 23:29:10 +0900 Tetsuo Handa <penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> James Morris wrote: > > On Sun, 28 May 2017, Tetsuo Handa wrote: > > > > > can afford enabling". And we know that we cannot merge all > > > security modules into mainline. Thus, allowing LKM-based LSM > > > modules is inevitable. > > > > Nope, it's not inevitable. The LSM API only caters to in-tree > > users. > > > > I'm not sure why you persist against this. > > Then, we are willing to accept LSM modules with users less than 10, > aren't we? Forcing users to patch and recompile is as heartless as > forcing CONFIG_MODULES=n. These are good reasons. I'm in favor of Tetsuo. Regards José
